On Sat, 2016-08-06 at 09:42 -0500, Ian Clarke wrote: > On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 9:22 AM, Florent Daigniere nextgens@freenetprojec > t.org wrote: > > The project is in terrible shape due to the lack of leadership, and > > most of it boils down to the fact that you're just not around (I'm > > sure > > you're busy with other things). > > > > It is certainly true that I'm preoccupied with other things (namely > making a living - an unfortunate necessity for most people). Should > someone else come along with the time, motivation, and expertise to > take over as coordinator, I would welcome it. No such person has > come forward. >
I think that we should make it clear that we're looking for such a person... Just like we should make clear that we're looking for a UI/website designer and other things. > What's wrong is not just the current > funding allocation fiasco (who will ever consider sponsoring us, now > that we've shown that we don't even know what to do with the money we > have?). > > We're in the midst of a process to do exactly that, a process which > is now moving forward. > I'm glad it is. It's been three months and it's only started making sign of progress when I've sent my email (last Tuesday). > - we have no roadmap; we need one. > > That's precisely what this process is designed to create. > Okay, then the thread shouldn't be called "Financial allocation poll". > - the consensus / democratic / hipster way of taking decisions > doesn't > work for open-source projects that aren't funded. > > Why do you assume that the process won't work before we've even tried > it? > Because I consider a 3 month delay a failure. Usually people make a plan and raise funds towards achieving that plan... that usually enables them to justify asking for more when they can show that they've a track record of delivering what they have pledge for. > Open source projects > are a meritocracy where do-ers have power; those that disagree are > free > to fork and become do-ers. > > That seems self-contradictory to me - you just recommended having a > roadmap, and yet now you seem to be arguing that a volunteer-run > project can't have a roadmap because nobody can be compelled to do > anything they don't want to do. > That's not self-contradictory. That applies to projects that aren't funded (the part you've removed). Projects that are funded usually adopt a different model (for obvious reasons). > - the current level of funding doesn't give much time/resources and > it's clearly a waste of time for everyone involved to argue about > processes for allocating them. > > Who is arguing? Most people seem to be just getting on with working > within the process. Everyone had ample opportunity to offer feedback > on the process months ago when it was first proposed. I don't > understand why you and others have waited until we're in the middle > of the process before trying to poke holes in it. > I've waited for it to fail before complain about it straight away (rather than assuming that it would fail). Take it as a proof that I'm not always against trying new things. We obviously have different metrics for quantifying failure; I'm okay with that. > Time is money, even if it's only > volunteers's. Just call the shots, those that disagree are free to > leave (and that comes from someone who has a long history of > disagreeing with most of your previous calls :)). I'm puzzled as of > why > you've decided to do things differently this time around... > > Because I noticed that a solid "core" of Freenet developers seemed > very resentful of me getting involved in the project again, and so I > concluded that if I just came in and started to bark orders at > people, they would not respond well. > A good leader needs to be able to make calls that are not always popular. Populism hasn't lead anyone anywhere. And yes, you might lose volunteers if your aim isn't aligned with their... but surely that's better than not clarifying where you're going? > What's the strategy/long-term roadmap for the project? I mean, once > we've blown the current financial resources, what's the plan? > > I would say the goal is two-fold: > > a) Get Freenet to the point that it is easy to use, comparable to > contemporary software-projects in terms of UI design, marketing etc. > b) Ensure that Freenet achieves its goal of ensuring true freedom of > communication (which means it needs to be secure, etc) > I meant funding-wise. Those goals are nice (and things I might even personally agree to) but when are we aiming at achieving them (or a significant milestone towards them)? Do we need more resources (including financial) to get there in time? If so, what are we doing to get there? Reading again the spreadsheet on the other thread, very few of the proposed items there are delivering something tangible towards those goals. > PS: To be cristal clear, I'm fine with Freenet not having resources, > being a research/toy project, I definitely don't want more > users/problems... but I don't understand the logic/strategy pursued > by > those that do. > > If I wanted to be autocratic I'd immediately allocate $5k to get > professional designers to redesign the website from the ground-up, > however I have a strong feeling that would be met by howls of protest > by those who (for reasons that make no sense to me) think the website > is just fine the way it is. > I don't like the design of the website either tbh... but more than the design, it's the content that needs to change... and I doubt that allocating $5k towards a re-design would solve that. Count me towards those in favour of allocating money to having a better website. Florent
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
